Doctor Sleep movie set for 2019

[georgiesarm]

Kubrick's film is a detour, a distraction, and the fact that this detour/distraction is a good film doesn't negate the fact that he ignored King's story by changing a sympathetic and therefore tragic protagonist into a monster that the movie viewer must watch to see if he kills, or is killed by, his weaker prey (logistically making the last half or third of Kubrick's Shining a hell of a lot more like a Freddy or Jason movie - man with axe chases woman and child!! will they make it?? - even if it looks nothing like one). It's okay to enjoy the film (as I do) while seeing that it is a poor adaptation (as it is) and understanding why King's feelings would be determined by this.

I think the mini-series is at least as guilty of this if not more, to the point of putting evil Jack in actual (and cheap looking) monster make-up. Jack's over the top spouting out of cheesy lines in the last part while chasing Danny, or stuff like the silly CG visual of a firehose with teeth, are much more in line with a Freddy movie than anything in the Kubrick film. And I just don't feel sympathy for Jack or Danny because of their poor acting. A little more for Wendy, but she's given too much dumb things to do, like delivering long, unconvincing monologues telling the ghosts they're just spooks.

[georgiesarm]

Mae, I respect you and generally agree with most of your cinematic observations but, with all due respect, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MOTHERFUCKING MIND? "The Shining" is "one of the best films ever made, period"? That is an insane statement.

Nothing insane about that statement at all, The Shining is widely regarded to be a cinematic masterpiece by film critics, filmfans and filmmakers.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make them right!!! lol Anyway, I'm really basing my opinion on, Kubrick's adaption of the book to film, which I think most here are primarily concerned with, not the film itself if you know what I mean. The TV MS may not have been as dynamic as the film version, but it was far more accurate an adaption of the book. This is just my opinion. I'm not trying to start a debate or anything. Personally, I thought, Kubrick really screwed the pooch on this one regardless how the film community may feel about it and his other films since 1956 or whatever. lol[/QUOTE]

I feel they both fail as an adaptation. I'm looking for a film to capture the spirit of the book, and Mick Garris' directing fails to do so every single time. You just can't film a Stephen King story in such a bland fashion and be faithful IMO.

[St. Troy]

I think it's being lost that my Freddy/Jason comparison refers to the nature of the "big baddie" (not the way it looks on screen, not special effects), specifically:

- in King's novel and miniseries, the "big baddie" is a sympathetic human being with a tragic character arc whose death is sad, despite the fact that we don't want him to succeed in harming Danny;

- in Kubrick's adaptation, the big baddie is basically inhuman, and we hope for something to stop him as he mindlessly seeks to kill his intended victims - as is the case with every Freddy/Jason type film ever made.

The first is a human story; the second is a museum piece to stare at.

That is a huge loss.

Whether or not you enjoy museum pieces - I do, and Kubrick is good with them - it is hardly remarkable that this profound and obvious loss of story caused King's complaints (that people find them head-scratching is itself head-scratching).

[St. Troy]

Although I enjoyed the miniseries and was thrilled (kind of still am) to have access to a proper adaptation, yes, it lacked in some of the qualities an actual movie would have (I'm not saying it was perfect; special effects suffered, but I thought the acting was generally good). For me, that was a very acceptable trade-off, given that it was faithful to the novel and much longer than a single movie could be - and also because I never thought there'd be another adaptation. If someone wanted to take another run at adapting it, I'm happy to see it, but only if it stays relatively faithful (otherwise, just watch Kubrick's echoing hall of images one more time).

Random:
Parallels between the characters of Jack and Cujo just occurred to me...

[Hunchback Jack]

I watched Room 237 recently, about some of the "hidden messages" in Kubrick's The Shining. Some film critics have WAY too much time on their hands.

Personally I think the film works just fine without needing hidden references to Native American massacres, the Holocaust, or faking the moon landings.

HBJ

[mae]

Great discussion of the trailer by The Losers Club: https://consequenceofsound.net/2019/...sleep-trailer/

Now I’m really curious what this awesome Dark Tower reference will be.

No one? Maybe this one person who's seen the film might tell us

[St. Troy]

...hidden references to Native American massacres, the Holocaust, or faking the moon landings.

What do you think - are those references really there in the film? Or are the critics just reading too much into it?

[Hunchback Jack]

I think a lot of it is critics reading too much into it.

There’s a mystique around Kubrick because he was known to be obsessive about details, and a perfectionist. He insisted on a huge number of takes for even relatively minor scenes. And he’s obviously very precise when it comes to blocking and the timing of a scene. So I think people go a bit crazy when analyzing his work, because they think every facet of every frame must serve some deeper allegorical or thematic purpose.

So they will see something in one scene, get the idea that it “means something”, and look for supporting evidence in other scenes. Which they will find, because imagination is a powerful thing, and confirmation bias will convince them it’s not a coincidence.

Others do things like superimpose the film playing forwards over the film playing backwards, and look for meaning in the combinations of elements they see. That, to my mind, is a complete waste of time if you are interested in Kubrick’s actual intent.

That’s not to say The Shining can only be enjoyed at face value. I do think a lot of the elements that are interpreted as allegorical are done deliberately - but to support the movie’s plot, character development, theme, or mood, not to convey a hidden message.

HBJ

[mae]

[Bev Vincent]

Original Danny Torrance Actor Responds to The Shining Sequel Doctor Sleep

[Joe315]

HARD PASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. This looks like total B movie crap. My buddy who seen it... called it.

He works with the studio. He is a super good guy and he called me the minute he got out. And he totally hated it. Said it was (in his words... “a total stinker”.

I just asked. Says it was the finished product. Whether there is changes or not... he did not indicate it to me. HE LOVED IT....

Which is it Kris, good or bad?

[fernandito]

Stoked for this! Love the callback to the Shining with that audio cue at the end of the trailer.

[RichardX]

In fairness to the movie, I don't think Dr. Sleep was a particularly good book. There is not much to work with and it is impossible to live up to a comparison with Kubrick's iconic movie. So this one is likely to go the way of The Dark Tower. A resounding dud that is forgotten while it is still in the theatres. I hope I'm wrong though but that trailer doesn't inspire confidence. A great trailer doesn't mean a great movie but a bad trailer usually means trouble. If you can't grab the audience's attention for a couple of minutes, then you are doomed with a full length movie.

[Merlin1958]

In fairness to the movie, I don't think Dr. Sleep was a particularly good book. There is not much to work with and it is impossible to live up to a comparison with Kubrick's iconic movie. So this one is likely to go the way of The Dark Tower. A resounding dud that is forgotten while it is still in the theatres. I hope I'm wrong though but that trailer doesn't inspire confidence. A great trailer doesn't mean a great movie but a bad trailer usually means trouble. If you can't grab the audience's attention for a couple of minutes, then you are doomed with a full length movie.

Kubricks' film and Kings' novel (either one) have very little to do with one another.

[CyberGhostface]

...hidden references to Native American massacres, the Holocaust, or faking the moon landings.

What do you think - are those references really there in the film? Or are the critics just reading too much into it?

Most of it's bullshit. One of Kubrick's aides said a lot of the stuff they thought had grander meaning was just there for pragmatic reasons -- i.e. the documentary goes on about the symbolism of a German typewriter representing the Holocaust when Kubrick just liked how it looked.

So this one is likely to go the way of The Dark Tower. A resounding dud that is forgotten while it is still in the theatres

I doubt it will go the way of 'The Dark Tower'. That was a misfire on every conceivable level. Something like this they would have to go out of their way to drop the ball like they did there.

This at least has a legitimately talented director behind it. Mike Flanagan took a film based off one of King's least popular novels and turned it into something almost everyone loved.

Worst case scenario I see it doing similar to Pet Sematary. This at least has the buzz of being a Shining sequel to catch mainstream viewers.

[webstar1000]

HARD PASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. This looks like total B movie crap. My buddy who seen it... called it.

He works with the studio. He is a super good guy and he called me the minute he got out. And he totally hated it. Said it was (in his words... “a total stinker”.

I just asked. Says it was the finished product. Whether there is changes or not... he did not indicate it to me. HE LOVED IT....

Which is it Kris, good or bad?

IT. He loved the movie IT. Lol hated Doctor Sleep

[herbertwest]

...hidden references to Native American massacres, the Holocaust, or faking the moon landings.

What do you think - are those references really there in the film? Or are the critics just reading too much into it?

Most of it's bullshit. One of Kubrick's aides said a lot of the stuff they thought had grander meaning was just there for pragmatic reasons -- i.e. the documentary goes on about the symbolism of a German typewriter representing the Holocaust when Kubrick just liked how it looked.

So this one is likely to go the way of The Dark Tower. A resounding dud that is forgotten while it is still in the theatres

I doubt it will go the way of 'The Dark Tower'. That was a misfire on every conceivable level. Something like this they would have to go out of their way to drop the ball like they did there.

This at least has a legitimately talented director behind it. Mike Flanagan took a film based off one of King's least popular novels and turned it into something almost everyone loved.

Worst case scenario I see it doing similar to Pet Sematary. This at least has the buzz of being a Shining sequel to catch mainstream viewers.

Given that they play with the SHINING card, I think that it can only help the movie.
Who, nowadays, do not know that movie?

That's obviously a very clever marketng plan

[St. Troy]

Others do things like superimpose the film playing forwards over the film playing backwards, and look for meaning in the combinations of elements they see.

Ok; I'll admit to being mighty curious about the results this yields.

[Hunchback Jack]

Others do things like superimpose the film playing forwards over the film playing backwards, and look for meaning in the combinations of elements they see.

Ok; I'll admit to being mighty curious about the results this yields.

It's in the Room 237 documentary. It is fascinating to watch, and fun to draw correlations between the two superimposed images, but it's a meaningless exercise with respect to interpretation.

I don't subscribe to the postmodernist idea that any interpretation of a film or book can be considered meaningful or valid, no matter what the author's actual intent was. In my mind, that's not interpretation, that's embellishment - the same driving force that creates fan fiction. It might be fascinating and fun, and essentially harmless, but it's not enriching our understanding of the original work.

HBJ

[RichardX]

...hidden references to Native American massacres, the Holocaust, or faking the moon landings.

What do you think - are those references really there in the film? Or are the critics just reading too much into it?

Most of it's bullshit. One of Kubrick's aides said a lot of the stuff they thought had grander meaning was just there for pragmatic reasons -- i.e. the documentary goes on about the symbolism of a German typewriter representing the Holocaust when Kubrick just liked how it looked.

So this one is likely to go the way of The Dark Tower. A resounding dud that is forgotten while it is still in the theatres

I doubt it will go the way of 'The Dark Tower'. That was a misfire on every conceivable level. Something like this they would have to go out of their way to drop the ball like they did there.

This at least has a legitimately talented director behind it. Mike Flanagan took a film based off one of King's least popular novels and turned it into something almost everyone loved.

Worst case scenario I see it doing similar to Pet Sematary. This at least has the buzz of being a Shining sequel to catch mainstream viewers.

I think the only question is whether it fails small or big. And that depends on how closely it is associated with Kubrick's movie. If this is marketed as a sequel to that iconic movie, then it is a big time fail. If it is marketed as some type of Stephen King-related movie, then it will be a minor Pet Sematary fail. Again though, I think the filmmakers are at some disadvantage in that King hasn't given them much to work with here.

[mattgreenbean]

With all this conversation about Kubrick's film, I was talking to my co-worker buddy about Dr. Stranglove. The intern asked what movie I was talking about. I said it's a Kubrick film. She asked who Stanley Kubrick was.

Aside from that, I finally got to finish reading Doctor Sleep, which I started last year after my second child was born. I should have waited because finding time to read became difficult. But I finished it and it was an alright story. Not as tight as The Shining. But as a what-ever-happened-to-danny story, it was fulfilling. So then I watched the trailer, and it looked as though Flanagan has injected some energy into the pacing of the story. I really think I'm going to enjoy the movie.
I'd like to see Flanagan do Insomnia.

[kingfan2323]

With all this conversation about Kubrick's film, I was talking to my co-worker buddy about Dr. Stranglove. The intern asked what movie I was talking about. I said it's a Kubrick film. She asked who Stanley Kubrick was.

Aside from that, I finally got to finish reading Doctor Sleep, which I started last year after my second child was born. I should have waited because finding time to read became difficult. But I finished it and it was an alright story. Not as tight as The Shining. But as a what-ever-happened-to-danny story, it was fulfilling. So then I watched the trailer, and it looked as though Flanagan has injected some energy into the pacing of the story. I really think I'm going to enjoy the movie.
I'd like to see Flanagan do Insomnia.

Some interesting points. Up to us to spread the gospel of Kubrick. Master for sure. Insomnia eh! Interesting.

seeking: anything DT related #246
Night Shift Anniversary Ed. (blue skull cover)

[kingfan2323]

Others do things like superimpose the film playing forwards over the film playing backwards, and look for meaning in the combinations of elements they see.

Ok; I'll admit to being mighty curious about the results this yields.

It's in the Room 237 documentary. It is fascinating to watch, and fun to draw correlations between the two superimposed images, but it's a meaningless exercise with respect to interpretation.

I don't subscribe to the postmodernist idea that any interpretation of a film or book can be considered meaningful or valid, no matter what the author's actual intent was. In my mind, that's not interpretation, that's embellishment - the same driving force that creates fan fiction. It might be fascinating and fun, and essentially harmless, but it's not enriching our understanding of the original work.

HBJ

I love that point, HBJ! One of the highlights of going to film school was listening to my instructor and class discuss all the meanings behind the USA flag car cover used in Silence of the Lambs. That night I watched the laser disc (google it) ha! And in the director commentary Jonathan Demme says that people like speculating on the old car cover but it doesn't mean ANYTHING. Last minute prop run and that's it. Instructor was very pissy when he couldn't blabber on about it. There is plenty of amazing themes and ideas in good cinema. Dont make it up.

#1 highlight- william friedkin giving a talk and ends up asking me probing questions on what film techniques lead to me being frightened during The Excorcist! In an auditorium of people.


seeking: anything DT related #246
Night Shift Anniversary Ed. (blue skull cover)

[RichardX]

From a philosophical view, there might be a question as to whether the director/writer/artist must intend for there to be a symbolic meaning for it to exist or to whether the audience can give it meaning.

When I saw the documentary on The Shining it struck me that some of the "symbolic" parts might just have been sloppy continuity errors. For example, when objects appear in one shot but not in others. But who really knows whether it was intentional or not?

[amd013]

Did they change room 217 to 237 in the movie? That's what I saw in this trailer.